Wikipedia articles are unreliable at best and possibly fake!
I’ve always enjoyed writing about technology (computers and otherwise), and have done it since childhood, I wanted to discover a new way to share my knowledge and experience.
After I got the website done, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to share what my page is about on the Wikipedia.org page.
I joined that Wikipedia today and tried to make a page about my website saying what it’s about, maybe that way I could contribute to Wikipedia.
I made a page that says like this:
ML Lapan is a Bosnia and Herzegovina web community and technology magazine, including news and tutorials about computers, software, hardware, games, websites, and more.
It was founded in 2015 as a blog on the domain lapan.com.ba, and in 2019 it was changed to the current name and domain ML Lapan (mllapan.com).
The author and owner of the site are Muamer Lapandić.
On this website, you can find thousands of different posts, and you can participate in various discussions.
On the website, you can learn more about computers, software, hardware, games, websites, and much more.
The website includes a social network or social platform where you can meet new friends and invite old ones to join you.
The site is based on many technologically detailed instructions, tutorials, and other types of written help.
You can think of this site as an “Online Computer Service”, “Online Telephone Service”, “Online Magazine”, “Online Instructions”, “Social Network”, “Online Discussions” and many more.
As you can see, this website or blog is based on information about technology or technology assistance (instructions for computers, laptops, phones, tablets, etc.), but the website also allows users to have their social wall, groups, and forums.
I was aware that if I add a page to Wikipedia and I don’t have some benefit for my SEO or traffic, I see no reason to do any promotion and it won’t help traffic or search engine rankings.
But that wasn’t my motivation to put the page on Wikipedia.
I just wanted to share an informative and technological community page on Wikipedia, all backed up by the published literature on this very site.
How could I be wrong
I named my account or account MLLapan, and it fully reveals that I stand behind the site mllapan.com. That was a big mistake I made, because it is against the rules to “advertise” yourself (publish something of your own), and I realized that after a few hours.
So my account was MLLapan and the Wikipedia page was MLLapan.com, that page explained what the website was about, as you could read above.
The information was factual, non-promotional, and concise.
This was my first page on Wikipedia.org.
What happened stunned me
I have been issued an unlimited site-wide ban.
” Your account has been suspended indefinitely. ”
In other words, unless the ban is reversed, it will be a lifetime ban from Wikipedia.
” Your account has been blocked from editing indefinitely due to the following issues: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is against Wikipedia’s purpose, and your username suggests that the account represents a business, other organization, group, or website, which is against policy username. “
So, just because I created the MLLapan.com page and uploaded my site to Wikipedia is against the rules.
I told them that I was trying to share the correct facts about our site and that I saw no reason that it being my site should be a problem, and the same goes for my Wikipedia account.
The bottom line is that I’m blocked forever because “I’m me” and I write about what I know.
Now it’s about to get interesting, keep reading.
Who writes about topics if Wikipedia does not allow people with expertise and knowledge to comment on their expert topics due to conflicts of interest
This is a real question!
If you’re a professional journalist, it’s against the rules to talk about journalism, because that would be advertising, wouldn’t it?
If you post your page where you work as a journalist, it’s even worse and you’ll probably get blocked.
Who will write about journalism on Wikipedia, if the journalist cannot because he is advertising himself or his journalism?
Christiano Ronaldo created a Wikipedia account to edit his “About C. Ronaldo” page while receiving a definitive block because it is against the rules for him to speak for himself, which can be done by someone else.
– She left us a long time ago.
What to do when uploading something to Wikipedia
To put something on Wikipedia, you need to pretend that you are not who you are.
Pretend you’re a baker while writing about journalism, don’t let your username give you away.
To put a page about yourself or your business on Wikipedia, an individual should create an account pretending to be someone else, so as not to violate the rule of self-promotion.
But are there enough people who will pretend to be something they are not, to write about what they know?
Are there any of them who will even bother with this illogicality?
Probably a very small percentage.
This tells us that most articles or pages on Wikipedia are a collection of big nothings, written by those who do not understand the subject.
Due to this limitation, expert opinions are not allowed, and only people with a certain understanding are allowed to write.
Why do I think so?
Any individual, who is specialized in his field and who tries to write something on Wikipedia will be considered as advertising.
If you want to give information and have someone believe that information, you should probably write who you are, write that you did such and such, in such and such a company, for so many years, and so on.
According to Wikipedia, it’s advertising, you’re advertising yourself.
You want to write about your business, which you are engaged in, but you are not allowed to advertise, so what are you left with
All you have to do is edit the existing pages, written by who knows what ignoramuses.
Your edits will be accepted or not.
As an expert, you will be exposed to a possible conflict with someone who is not, who does not know what he is writing, and you will not be allowed to present your information and prove that you know that field, because that would be advertising.
As you can see, this option also falls away.
What did they answer me?
“Wikipedia truly likes that editors have little if any relationship to what they are editing about.”
“Wikipedia likes that editors have little or nothing to do with what they’re editing.”
“It’s best if individuals don’t write about subjects that are personally important to them.”
“It is best that individuals do not write about topics that are personally important to them.”
“We are severe about that since it reflects on our reliability and trustworthiness.”
“We’re strict about that because it reflects on our reliability.”
Can it get more “logical” than this?
Does this need to be explained at all, we have already explained everything.
Regardless of who writes it, any remark, change or work must be credible and trustworthy and must be supported by evidence.
Any article posted by someone who has a basic understanding of the subject will be more credible than one written by someone who simply has a basic or rudimentary understanding or none at all.
Back to the topic, my page was based on references, facts, and style with other pages on Wikipedia, as well as based on someone knowledgeable on the subject (technology).
But the problem was that the page was mine.
This was because my username implied that the page I was posting was associated with me, which was against the username policy.
So, according to Wikipedia, the authors of the material can only be amateurs with fake names.
If I put the same rules on my site, as Wikipedia does, then topics like ” What is BIOS and how to update it ” should be written by someone who knows nothing or little about computers, about BIOS, and that I shouldn’t do it myself, because I advertise myself as an expert in this field.
Wikipedia is a bunch of big nothings, and don’t use it to learn something about something.
Use books by experts, because all you will get on Wikipedia are unreliable and fake articles.
Read our blog.